5.  The applicants are Polish nationals and live in Bystra.
6.  The applicants owned some plots of land in Wieprz, Poland.
7.  On 10 July 1989 the applicants signed a friendly settlement agreement with the Public District Roads Office (Rejon Dróg Publicznych) and agreed to the expropriation of 120 square metres of their property in return for compensation. The land was to be designated for the widening of a regional road (droga wojewódzka). Since then the property has been in the possession of the State Treasury.
8.  In 1991 the Public District Roads Office requested the applicants to sign a notary deed confirming their friendly settlement. Subsequently, the representative of the Public District Roads Office refused to sign the deed because a contract of annuity had previously been concluded in favour of the mother of one of the applicants. That contract was registered in the property records of the plot in question. The applicant’s mother could not sign the notary deed because she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease.
9.  In 1999 the applicant’s mother died. The right of annuity was removed from the property records.
10.  On 15 July 1999 the applicants asked the Żywiec District Roads Authority (Powiatowy Zarząd Dróg) for compensation for the expropriated plot or for the restitution of the land. The applicants noted that the matter of compensation had not been resolved for the previous seven years and requested that the matter be given urgent attention.
11.  On 11 August 1999 the District Roads Authority informed the applicants that, on 1 January 1999, their plot of land had become ex lege the property of the State Treasury and that they would be granted compensation if they applied for it between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2005. The applicants were also informed that their previous application for compensation would be regarded as an indication that they would lodge another, official application within the statutory time‑limit. On 22 January 2001 the applicants filed another request for compensation for the expropriated land.
12.  On 16 August 2001 the applicants complained about the lack of compensation to the Śląski Governor. They submitted that for several years they had been seeking compensation for expropriated property and that no appealable decision in their case had been given. On 26 September 2001 the Śląski Governor replied that they should complain and submit their application for compensation to the Mayor of the Żywiec District.
13.  On 4 September 2001 the applicants lodged a further application for compensation, this time with the Mayor of the Żywiec District.
14.  On 26 September 2001 the Mayor of the Żywiec District replied, informing the applicants that, on 1 January 1999, their plot of land had become ex lege the property of the State Treasury. He did not refer to the applicants’ request for compensation.
15.  On 1 October 2001 the applicants again complained to the Śląski Governor.
16.  On 10 October 2001 the Śląski Governor replied that, although the plot had become the State Treasury’s property ex lege, a final decision by the Śląski Governor confirming the transfer of ownership was necessary in order to determine and pay compensation. The Governor also mentioned that “the drawing up of the necessary documentation for the plots of land in question” depended on “the financial means at the disposal of the office”.
17.  On 20 February 2006 the Śląski Governor gave a decision and confirmed the transfer of ownership of the plot of land in question. That was the first decision given in the applicants’ case against which they could lodge an appeal.
18.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed, apparently complaining again about unpaid compensation.
19.  On 25 April 2006 the Minister of Transport (Minister Transportu) upheld the challenged decision. Referring to the question of compensation, the Minister noted that that matter would be determined in separate proceedings before the Mayor.
20.  On 29 June 2006 the applicants received a letter headed “notification” from the Mayor of the Żywiec District. The Mayor informed them that “due to financial constraints” their request for compensation would “presumably be examined in the first quarter of the year 2007”.
21.  On 11 June 2007 the Mayor of the Żywiec District informed the applicants that they could consult the expert report concerning the value of the property (operat szacunkowy).
22.  On 21 June 2007 the Mayor of the Żywiec District gave a decision, fixed the compensation to be paid to the applicants at PLN 1,265.00 and ordered that this amount be paid to the applicants. The decision became final on 24 July 2007.
23.  On 13 September 2007 the compensation was paid to the applicants.
24.  In 1990 in the course of work on widening the regional road onto the plot of land expropriated from the applicants, the workers removed a boundary along about one hundred metres of the applicants’ property, giving rise to a boundary dispute between the applicants and their neighbours.
25.  In November 1992 the applicants requested the Kraków Regional Director of Public Roads (Dyrekcja Okręgowych Dróg Publicznych) to reimburse the expenses incurred.
26.  On 3 December 1992 the Kraków Regional Director of Public Roads replied that work on the demarcation of the applicants’ plot and the plot of their neighbours had already been entrusted to a geodesist.
27.  However, until 1999 no delimitation was carried out.
28.  In 1999 the applicants requested a geodesist to mark the boundaries on their plot of land because they wanted to build houses for their children. The geodesist could not perform his work without marking the boundary between the applicants’ plot and that of their neighbours. Therefore, the applicants had to bear the cost of the demarcation themselves.
29.  On 15 July 1999 the applicants requested the Żywiec District Roads Authority to reimburse them for the cost of the demarcation and enclosed the invoice issued by the geodesist.
30.  On 7 September 1999 the applicants received a letter from the Żywiec District Roads Authority to the effect that the authority did not have the financial means to reimburse them for the cost of the demarcation.
31.  The applicants complained to the Mayor of the Żywiec District who referred their complaint back to the Żywiec District Roads Authority.
32.  On 7 December 1999 the Żywiec District Roads Authority replied to the applicants using exactly the same wording as in their letter of 7 September 1999.
33.  In 2001 the applicants again asked the Żywiec District Roads Authority for reimbursement of their expenses.
34.  On 15 March 2001 the Żywiec District Roads Authority refused to reimburse the expenses, referring to the prescription period for lodging a claim.
35.  The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.
36.  On 23 July 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected their complaint, finding that the letter of 15 March 2001 in respect of which they had lodged their complaint was not a decision of a second-instance administrative authority and that the applicants had not proved that any administrative decisions had been issued in respect of their case.